Make your case against him and tell me why he should be opposed. BTW, if you want to convince anyone, kindly prove your assertions. I have not yet heard a Democratic Senator to come out in opposition, probably because no hearings have been held and they're not comfortable jumping to conclusions.

So ... are you up for it or are all these sky-is-falling posts the product of paranoid speculation. I am personally open to persuasion although otherwise, I think I might withhold judgment until the hearings are held.

But by all means ... make your case. Not one-liners or speculation or assertions. A real case against this guy.

I agree with your premise but the constitution means W will make the pick. Obviously W will also pick a conservative. If you want better options America will have to make a better choice in their leaders.

... this article by law professor Bruce Ackerman, on how the Dem senators should handle questioning Bush's SC nominees:

"The president has repeatedly promised us justices like Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia, and I propose to take him at his word. If we simply take the trouble to read their opinions, it becomes evident that a Court dominated by Thomases and Scalias would launch a constitutional revolution on a scale unknown since the New Deal.

The Senate should also take the president seriously. Bush has already told us the kind of justices he wants, and if he has had a last-minute change of heart, it should be up to individual nominees to convince us that they are not in the Thomas-Scalia mold.

Placing this burden on the nominee permits senators to deﬁne a more decorous and consequential role for themselves in giving 'advise and consent'. Rather than browbeating nominees, senators should take the president at his word, unless the candidate convinces them otherwise. They should repeatedly confront nominees with the opinions of Thomas and Scalia, and ask them to state, clearly and without equivocation, whether they agree or disagree. This approach would focus public attention on the main issue:

a lot of the flip-out is based upon the strongly-held conviction that Bush should not, under any circumstances and for any reason, be allowed to affect the high court. Period. End of sentence.

I agree with the sentiment. Unfortunately, translating the desire into an actual brick wall against appointments like this is going to be a supremely tall order unless and untill we win a lot of seats in the midterms.

never served as judges. There are other ways to serve in the legal profession short of being a judge. Earl Warren was never a judge. Rehnquist was never a judge. Lewis Powell hadn't been a judge. In fact, fewer than half of ALL supreme court justices were sitting judges at the time of their appointment.

If he's healthy, he could affect things until 2030. That's frightening. Bush is going to take the age deeply into consideration no matter who he nominates because he wants his evil to resonate through time stinking up the place.

Community and environmental rights by working to strike down new clean-air rules and filing a brief for the National Mining Association, arguing that federal courts could not stop mountaintop-removal mining in West Virginia, even as it devastated local communities.7Workers' rights by helping Toyota to successfully evade the Americans with Disabilities Act and fire workers for disabilities they suffered over time because of the requirements of their jobs.8

Individual rights by rejecting the civil rights claims brought on behalf of a 12-year-old girl who had been handcuffed, arrested and taken away by the police for eating a single french fry in the D.C. Metro.10

Environmental protections when the dissent he wrote on an Endangered Species Act case, had it been in the majority, would have struck the Act down as unconstitutional in many cases, and would have threatened a wide swath of workplace, public safety and civil rights protections.11

Human Rights by voting to strike down the Geneva Conventions as applied to prisoners that the Bush administration chose to exempt from international law.12

with a wife than the man. She seems a bit extreme. But my main concern is what role did Roberts play in Bush's (se)election and is this payback for being a good boy. Hell, the guy's only been a judge for 2 years so seems a bit fishy to me. Otherwise, I think that Edith (the evil one) would have been a lot worse.

50 years old. He could be with us for a very very long time - possibly thirty years or longer. For a conservative individual who has a record for partisan rightwing beliefs (see all posts above), this is someone to oppose if you were hoping for a moderate to replace SDO.

Not sure why I thought W's meeting with the Dems last week would mean he was at all interested in being a uniter not a divider... what was I thinking?

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.